Abstract

Citizens United has been the subject of a great deal of commentary, but one important aspect of the decision that has not been explored in detail is the historical basis for Justice Scalia’s claims in his concurring opinion that the majority holding is consistent with originalism. In this article, we engage in a deep inquiry into the historical understanding of the rights of the business corporation as of 1791 and 1868 — two periods relevant to an originalist analysis of the First Amendment. Based on the historical record, Citizens United is far more original than originalist, and if the decision is to be justified, it has to be on jurisprudential grounds originalists traditionally disclaim as illegitimate.

Register to save articles toyour library

Paper statistics

Related eJournals

University of Pennsylvania Law School, Law & Economics Research Paper Series

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

FOLLOWERS

4,418

PAPERS

657

This Journal is curated by:

Michael L. Wachter at University of Pennsylvania Law School - Institute for Law and Economics, William W. Bratton at University of Pennsylvania Law School, Jill E. Fisch at University of Pennsylvania Law School - Institute for Law and Economics

SSRN Rankings

About SSRN

We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content.By continuing, you agree to the use of cookies. To learn more, visit our Cookies page.
This page was processed by aws-apollo1 in 0.156 seconds